Should juveniles be tried as adults

Sentence juveniles as juveniles, because that is what they are. Adults who provide kids with guns used in violent crimes should be held at least as accountable as the kids themselves.

But when we punish them as adults, we change those odds. Should juveniles be tried as adults they fail to do so, the children will not understand it. I do however think the severity of the crime is important. They have a powerful ally: While the denial of full constitutional rights for juveniles is sometimes a problem, the juvenile court's mission is benevolence—to serve the best interests of children.

He was 14 when he committed the crime. It is believed that when children as young as years of age commit a crime, they do not necessarily grow up to become criminals; yet when they are punished in the same manner as adults, the odds of this could somehow change.

The juvenile court was created to handle juvenile offenders on the basis of their youth rather than their crimes.

These are the questions plaguing the American legal system today, as the violent acts of juvenile offenders continue to make headlines.

The concurrent Brazill and Tate trials served to heighten the public misconception that juvenile violent crime is on the rise; in fact, recent figures show a precipitous drop over the last five years.

The charge usually carries a prison term of up to 30 years, but Brazille's defense team is hopeful the sentencing judge will be more lenient in this case. Will trying juveniles in the same way as adults turn out to be a better solution and act as a deterrent to stop crime?

Violent crimes receive the harshest punishments, and it is said that the same should carry forth and continue for children as well.

The question 'Should juveniles be tried as adults for violent crimes' is garnering more and more arguments.

On the other hand, juvenile delinquents who commit a crime when they are very young, will most likely repress the memory of that crime, such that as the time of their sentence progresses, they will only have a vague recollection of the crime. This is damaging for all of society and especially for the young person and their family.

Funneling more youth into the adult system does no good and much harm. If a juvenile is defined as a person under the age of 18, how can you justify trying them in a court designed for adult offenders? In some states, including Tennessee, there is now no minimum age for being transferred to criminal court for certain crimes.

Or does he maintain some trappings of childhood, despite the gravity of his actions? He will probably repress the memory as he ages. He will probably repress the memory as he ages.

Successful rehabilitation, many argue, is better for society in the long run than releasing someone who's spent their entire young adult life in general prison population. Since the juvenile court was started more than a hundred years ago, a basic assumption underlying the juvenile court has been that juvenile offenders shouldn't go through the adult criminal courts.

With the use of rehabilitation, psychological guidance, and some punishment is efficient to teenagers who are convicted of crimes. Trying children as adults has coincided with lower rates of juvenile crimes.

In addition, growing up in poverty and unemployment have major effects on the likelihood that a young person will turn to violence during the transition to adulthood. By putting a juvenile into adult court, you are also effecting their adult criminal record.

Indeed, people now act as if the decision to treat a juvenile as a juvenile implies a judgment that the crime was not that serious, the victims not that worthy of respect. Juvenile courts should be abolished Supporters of getting rid of juvenile courts center their arguments on the need to punish juvenile criminals and a concern for juveniles' rights.

It is also argued that juvenile courts do not aim to punish, but are put in place to merely guide and treat. Juvenile sentences, in contrast, shield our youth from the unique dangers of adult facilities and preserve the possibility — however slight it may seem — of rehabilitation. The fundamental question is, are children capable of understanding the consequences of their actions?

Check new design of our homepage!While young people must be held accountable for serious crimes, the juvenile justice system exists for precisely that purpose. Funneling more youth into the adult system does no good and much harm. Juveniles are not adults, and saying so doesn’t make it so.

All but five states allow children of any age charged with murder to be tried as adults. The death penalty generally isn't an option — at least not for defendants under the age of 16; The U.

S. Supreme Court has ruled capital punishment unconstitutional for anyone who hasn't celebrated their 16th birthday. Juveniles are not adults, and saying so doesn’t make it so. Besides, we don’t really mean it: When we try them in criminal court, we don’t deem them adults for other purposes, such as voting and drinking.

Justice demands that juvenile courts be abolished—if juveniles are tried in adult courts, they will be afforded their full array of constitutional rights. Juvenile courts should not be abolished Many experts believe abolishing the juvenile court will only make matters worse.

- Juvenile delinquents should be tried as adults for their heinous crimes. For a variety of reasons. First, children through the ages of 12–17 are entirely capable of understanding the acts of crime they commit and are fully aware of what they are seeking.

When it comes to trying teens in court as adults. Some say stop trying them as adults and try them as juveniles, others say they must be tried as adults when they commit adult crimes.